Quantification, Environmental Impact, and Behavior Management: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review of Global Food Waste Research Based on CiteSpace

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article requires extensive language checks. Some sentences are difficult to understand or ambiguous, especially in the introduction part.

Too many text errors, for instances, line 88 food waste should be Food waste. Line 98, there should be space between to and 305. Line 113, research should be Research. Line 120, two dots in the end, etc.

The aim of this manuscript is not clear. The authors only mentioned that they sorted out the existing paper in order to provide a framework and reference for subsequent research. This is too simple and superficial as the aim of a review article.

Introduction was not in a well-formed structure, resulting in the confusion of logics. The authors only wrote one short paragraph describing about food waste, which is too general. It would take more than a volume data to make a whole picture of the food waste for the readers. After all, the key word of this manuscript is food waste. And out of nowhere, the situation in China was popped out. Since authors mentioned in the abstract, the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Sweden being the top five in terms of the number of articles published, why not describe the current or previous condition in the other four countries? Additionally, the definition of food loss and waste by FAO should be arranged at the beginning of the introduction, not in the third paragraph.

The paragraph starting from line 93 is not applicable in the section of Material and method, since it did not describe the method of this manuscript. It should be involved in the introduction.

What is ‘co-occurrence’?

In Table 2, Food waste quantitative result showed inconsistent decimal points, some are two decimals, some are one decimal, others are without decimal.

Table 5 only included the article titles, journal names but the authors haven’t summarized the key results of each article. It would be more clear and straight forward to involve them in the table.

What the standard or basis did authors used to select the articles in the Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 6? Since CiteSpace sorted 1570 published articles, it is not possible to describe them all. Did the software choose the articles by the top ranking according to different purposes?

The food waste related management policies in China and EU were described, but the United States was not mentioned in the text of the senction 3.4. What are the policies in the United States?

Author Response

We appreciate your carefulness and conscientiousness. Your suggestions are precious and helpful for revising and improving our paper. According to your requests, we have made revisions to this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The line 133 must be corrected "2.2 Research area and analysis".

The references doesn't meet the journal requirements - for example: line 163 [17],[18], line 176, and also many other. 

The line 358 - CiteSpace. 

Pay more attention to the requested aspects.

Congratulations for your work!

 

 

Author Response

We appreciate your carefulness and conscientiousness. Your suggestions are precious and helpful for revising and improving our paper. According to your requests, we have made revisions to this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The purpose of this research is not identified. I cant find real hypotheses of the research

Author Response

We appreciate your carefulness and conscientiousness. Your suggestions are precious and helpful for revising and improving our paper. According to your requests, we have made revisions to this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have modified the manuscript according to the comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your affirmation of our revision. Based on your suggestions, we have further scrutinized and fine-tuned the language. We expect to be able to meet the publication requirements. Thank you again!

Reviewer 3 Report

  The authors have integrated in the revised form of the manuscript new elements that make the work acceptable for publication

 

Author Response

Thank you for your affirmation of our revision. Based on your suggestions, we have further scrutinized and fine-tuned the language. We expect to be able to meet the publication requirements. Thank you again!